Doctor Who

[Lag]

The death of Gwen Stacey is a story that can be retold time and again. That's a theme about first love, loss of first love (to horrible villains). I'm talking about writing about the death of Gwen Stacey and in a subsequent chapter or sequel she reappears as if nothing has happened. Her death is meaningless - indeed it appears she didn't die at all, no character says anything about it. The value of that story, the meaning that it had, is lost.

I think you're viewing 'continuity' quite narrowly - no-one objects to the Doctor being able to travel through time, it's fundamental to the character. There is, however, criticism of the consistency of the rules. For example, can he change this timeline? Yes, done, easy. Or no, this event happens to be a fixed point in time and space and change would have horrible consequences if it could even be done. This is handwaved away as time being "wibbly wobbly", which is code for "it's expedient to the plot for time to be alterable / unalterable this episode (delete as applicable)."

Similarly, no-one objects to the Simpsons remaining the same age or Peter Parker remaining a young man (I understand he now runs his own business), if the whole universe around them ages at the same rate. That's OK in terms of continuity. It wouldn't be OK if one week Parker is 16, the next week 60, the following week 30, without any explanation (in or out of the universe).

[Fury4k]

Preaching to the choir man. I really wish Disney had reset the Star Wars canon by making everything explicitly and equally canonical, including the stuff that contradicts the other stuff or exists in many mutually exclusive versions.

That's pretty much how star wars Canon was dealt with prior to Disney buying it. Everything was Canon until it was explicitly shown not to be.

[HarMGM]

The death of Gwen Stacey is a story that can be retold time and again. I'm talking about writing about the death of Gwen Stacey and in a subsequent chapter or sequel she reappears as if nothing has happened. Her death is meaningless - indeed it appears she didn't die at all. The value of that story, the meaning that it had, is lost.

I think you're viewing 'continuity' quite narrowly -no-one objects to the Doctor being able to travel through time. There is, however, criticism of the consistency of the rules. For example, can he change this timeline? Yes, done, easy. or no, this event happens to be a fixed point in time and space and change would have horrible consequences if it could even be done. This is handwaved away as time being "wibbly wobbly", which is code for "it's expedient to the plot for time to be alterable / unalterable this episode (delete as applicable)."

Well that depends really, if the story in which she returns is a story that deals with her fake-death and acknowledges the power of that moment, that still can make the story hold up quite well. One of my favourite Batman stories is 'Over the Edge', in which Batgirl dies and everything goes wrong. The ending of the episode reveals that everything was all a dream but it hardly makes the episode less powerfull, because the stakes are well built up.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with the second point about continuity though. The changing of the rules on a story by story basis is in the very nature and in the very roots of the show. It's pretty much the way how the show learned to tell a story and the way in which lots of fiction operated. The rules may be handwaved away with some nonsense, but it allows the show to tell whatever story it wants. Again, the Twilight Zone only for kids. You don't need continuity to make a good story a good story. In fact, with Doctor Who, it only seems to get in the way. For instance, to take the rule that time cannot be altered, if you let that stand than the show would never be able to do a story like 'The Day of the Doctor' in which Time Travel is used as a not so sublte metaphor for moving on after having suffered a tragedy. On the other hand, that rule does allow stories like 'Father's Day' to be told which is equeally worth it so why not have both? Both still work as great stories even after the latter has been contradicted in-show by pretty much a dozen stories.

I can see how it could be annoying, but if anything i'd reconsider watching the show at all if that's what keeps you busy. Doctor Who, as a show about a time travelling Mad Man(and even that's not set in stone) isn't really suited for continuity heavy storytelling. All the better for it as far as i'm concerned.

[Alex W.]

I don't think anyone's asking for complete rattling discontinuities, but when you have a chance to mildly breach continuity and do something really interesting dramatically, that's worth doing. As opposed to doing something awful dramatically to preserve some aspect of continuity that isn't very important.

Big exception: if you're hinting at a big mystery based on your past continuity, you can't blindside people by just ignoring that same continuity and resolving the mystery in a way that couldn't be anticipated.

[Lag]

Well that depends really, if the story in which she returns is a story that deals with her fake-death and acknowledges the power of that moment, that still can make the story hold up quite well.

I thought I was fairly clear that I was criticising unacknowledged 'resurrections'.

[SqueakyG]

What is with you people and over thinking this show so much? It was just a scary turn of phrase to illustrate the potential of her plan and the size of her army.

I also didn't understand how Missy is: 1) obtaining millions of cyberman exoskeletons, and 2) installing them onto the corpses and skeletons of everyone who has died. And it was also you who responded to me and said, "You're over thinking it, mate."

I disagree with you -- I'm not over-thinking it. Plots have to make sense even in silly kids shows, otherwise it's just stuff. Even if it's outrageous, even if its daft, even if it's a fucking dragon hatching out of the moon... the internal logic has to go from A to B to C.

[Nick R]

I think the fictional universe adds something done right. The idea that there are some under discovered depths under the surface adds structure yo the world and having a consistent set of rules rather than calvinball can aid storytelling.

There are benefits to the other way too. But I think it's ultimately Tolkien's influence over fantasy and sci Fi that means it tends towards canon. James Bond though? Seems mad.

I think the number of contributing authors plays a big part in this.

I think that within one showrunner's tenure on a TV programme, or one writer/artist partnership's run on a comic, they should aim to keep things as consistent as they can. (Having said that, even within the works of a single author there can be benefits to ignoring your own rules, especially when they were set at a stage when you were still finding your way... imagine where Terry Pratchett's Discworld books would be now if he'd stuck to the way the Patrician, Death, and Granny Weatherwax were portrayed in the early novels!)

This also applies to works that are consciously created with the intention of starting again, of having more pre-planned continuity between entries than had been done before (Ultimate Marvel comics, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the Daniel Craig 007 films). So I'd hope that the Daniel Craig Bond films would all fit together pretty well, but I don't think the next guy to take on the role needs to adhere to them - and I don't need to believe the "James Bond is just a codename" thing in order to accept that.

And then you have shared universes with histories going back 50 years or more and dozens of creators, like the Marvel Universe, Star Trek, or Doctor Who. Changes of continuity, of style, of characterisation, over the years are part of the appeal - and with that continuity errors are inevitable. (And of course, those shared universe reboots that were intended to clean up the continuity, make it more consistent, inevitably turn into the same continuity nightmare that preceded them - look at Post-Crisis DC Comics.)

In those stories, when a writer makes an accurate reference to a detail from decades ago, the invested fan thinks "what a clever link" - but if they make a continuity error, it's daft to fret over it spoiling the illusion too much.

So with Doctor Who, I think while Moffat is writing he should try to keep things like, for example, the Doctor's history with River as consistent as possible. But if the next showrunner can only create the best episode ever if they direct contradict a rule about some alien race's fictional history or the capabilities of a piece of technology that Moffat made up, then they should go ahead.

I don't think anyone's asking for complete rattling discontinuities, but when you have a chance to mildly breach continuity and do something really interesting dramatically, that's worth doing. As opposed to doing something awful dramatically to preserve some aspect of continuity that isn't very important.

A good example is the "only twelve regenerations" rule. Before the 50th anniversary, some very silly people were saying smugly, "Well, I guess that means the show will have to end soon!" As it turned out, Moffat addressed that and we got a nice bit of drama out of it. But I wouldn't have minded if he'd completely ignored that limit, or dismissed it with a single line, and just carried on regardless with the next actor.

[Lag]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with the second point about continuity though. The changing of the rules on a story by story basis is in the very nature and in the very roots of the show. It's pretty much the way how the show learned to tell a story and the way in which lots of fiction operated. The rules may be handwaved away with some nonsense, but it allows the show to tell whatever story it wants. Again, the Twilight Zone only for kids. You don't need continuity to make a good story a good story. In fact, with Doctor Who, it only seems to get in the way. For instance, to take the rule that time cannot be altered, if you let that stand than the show would never be able to do a story like 'The Day of the Doctor' in which Time Travel is used as a not so sublte metaphor for moving on after having suffered a tragedy. On the other hand, that rule does allow stories like 'Father's Day' to be told which is equeally worth it so why not have both? Both still work as great stories even after the latter has been contradicted in-show by pretty much a dozen stories.

I would try to avoid introducing such a rule in the first place - this would neatly mitigate the risk of breaking that rule - or exclusively write stories that complied with the rules that were introduced. Some authors have managed to do this, you know. Or have a character explain that perhaps their understanding of the rule was faulty and posit that the rule may be such-and-such. Or have extremely serious in-universe consequences for breaking a rule. Doctor Who doesn't do that. Instead, the writers generally have the Doctor say, "well, sometimes it's like this, other times it's like this - and you can't count on that, either." In which case why bother explaining these rules at all? Just do what is expedient - which is what the writers do anyway - without explaining why. Or do it very rarely. That way, the viewer isn't inclined to think, "hang on, last week they said it worked one way, but now they're saying it works this way, what gives?"

As someone else pointed out, the most recent episode was peculiar in that it made a big deal of Clara chucking away the keys to the TARDIS, when we've been told in previous episodes that (A) the TARDIS can recognise the Doctor and (B) he can open the doors by clicking his fingers - if someone remembers that, they will wonder what the big deal is about throwing away the keys. I didn't remember that, but it did occur to me that he wouldn't leave himself absent plan B or they would obviously get around it somehow, which deflated the moment somewhat.

The most recent episode also had a very satisfactory explanation of the problem with interfering with time, when the Doctor explained to Clara that, if they traveled backwhen to interfere with Danny's death, they would cause a paradox because they wouldn't have been compelled travel backwhen to save him, and he suggested something bad would happen (her timeline would unravel, or something). He didn't say, "wibbly wobbly fixed point timey-wimey dragons from another dimension" bullshit. And, of course, not all the stories are about time travel (nor should they be).

Look, it might, just might, be the case that the writers have made some mistakes! That, sometimes, just sometimes, their stories aren't particularly good! The dismissals of criticism because Doctor Who is a "children's show" or "not hard sci-fi" (as if anyone suggested otherwise) do it a disservice, I think. It is a great concept with a fantastic heritage and many decent stories - I criticise the programme because it often fails to reach the bar it has set itself, not because I'm some sort of demanding sci-fi anorak with a knowledge of what the Doctor uttered 22 mins 37 seconds into S07E10 or the law pertaining to divorces among the sexually trimorphic species of the planet Zarabod VII.

[Gabe]

As someone else pointed out, the most recent episode was peculiar in that it made a big deal of Clara chucking away the keys to the TARDIS, when we've been told in previous episodes that (A) the TARDIS can recognise the Doctor and (B) he can open the doors by clicking his fingers - if someone remembers that, they will wonder what the big deal is about throwing away the keys. I didn't remember that, but it did occur to me that he wouldn't leave himself absent plan B or they would obviously get around it somehow, which deflated the moment somewhat.

Well that was explained in the same scene, that the Doctor wanted to let the situation play out to see how far Clara would go, it was nothing to do with him being locked-out.

Anyway, what I want to know is how Danny got run-over in the first place. The road he was crossing was a long straight road, so how exactly would a car 'appear out of nowhere'? Part of me wants to think that has some baring on the plot.

[Commander Jameson]

Anyway, what I want to know is how Danny got run-over in the first place. The road he was crossing was a long straight road, so how exactly would a car 'appear out of nowhere'? Part of me wants to think that has some baring on the plot.

Wasn't there a turn quite close by (on Danny's left as he crossed the road)? You see Clara running round it towards the accident scene.

[Fury4k]

I also didn't understand how Missy is: 1) obtaining millions of cyberman exoskeletons, and 2) installing them onto the corpses and skeletons of everyone who has died. And it was also you who responded to me and said, "You're over thinking it, mate."

I disagree with you -- I'm not over-thinking it. Plots have to make sense even in silly kids shows, otherwise it's just stuff. Even if it's outrageous, even if its daft, even if it's a fucking dragon hatching out of the moon... the internal logic has to go from A to B to C.

Well I Think most of what you're struggling with can be explained by the fact that she's a super intelligent immortal time traveler.

[Lag]

Well that was explained in the same scene, that the Doctor wanted to let the situation play out to see how far Clara would go, it was nothing to do with him being locked-out.

Clara believed that destroying the keys would result in the Doctor being locked out from the TARDIS and the audience would have in that scene (a) thought no, he's not going to be locked out, is he or (b) hang on, he can freely access the TARDIS, either way the moment was deflated, before we were told it was some kind of dream state.

Anyway, what I want to know is how Danny got run-over in the first place. The road he was crossing was a long straight road, so how exactly would a car 'appear out of nowhere'? Part of me wants to think that has some baring on the plot.

Wasn't there a turn quite close by (on Danny's left as he crossed the road)? You see Clara running round it towards the accident scene.

It appears the car traveled down the long straight towards us (the viewer). If Danny was distracted and using his right hand to hold the phone it's conceivable that he wouldn't have noticed the car, although its driver should have noticed Danny.

Well I Think most of what you're struggling with can be explained by the fact that she's a super intelligent immortal time traveler.

meaning she's omnipotent, right?

[Fury4k]

Meaning that it's not much of a stretch to imagine she'd be capable of achieving the things we saw in the episode.

[kensei]

I don't think the show should be continuity heavy, it just shouldn't be continuity free. If they'd have ignored the regen rule I'd have been annoyed - it's been stated loads of times both in show and other media and is one of the things people knew about Doctor Who. It was obviously going to get worked around, I just wanted a decent story out of it. To be honest, thought there was more dramatic potential than Time of the Doctor.

If the show sets rules, it should more or less stick to them. So the Doctor cannot cross his own timeline, Galifrey can't be accessed without a war and there are some fixed points in time etc. That doesn't mean that a writer can't revisit or break those rules, just it should (1) require thought about it to come up with a story for it (2) not be overused.

The stuff that annoys me is when the Doctor is supposedly stepping off the stage for a bit but then does nothing differently or the Daleks have their knowledge of him wiped but then no him, or a fixed point or a sonic screwdriver is used as a repeated story crutch. It makes the show harder to follow and invites incredulous questions. It's not even done for good stories half the time either.

[Comrade]

The thing about Doctor Who - and it's almost unique in the popular narrative form in this regard - is that there are absolutely no rules in it. Anything can happen at any time with only the tiniest explanations if they conflict with what's been historically established.

I can't think of anything like it that isn't going all-out for surrealism. Even something like Star Trek has rules that they usually have to make a big deal about if they're broken. Like when in the last film Cumberbatch transported from Earth to the Klingon homework with the absolutely briefest of hand-waving. Fans were pissed off with that, and rightly so, as something like that was never possible in the franchise and would have big ramifications if it was. But it would have been completely par for the course for Who.

Daleks have famously not been able to climb stairs for decades - now they can fly. Why didn't they fly before, when it would have been very useful for them? A one sentence explanation, if they can be bothered. Daleks have always been obsessed with racial purity, but making a Dalek-human hybrid or turning humans into Daleks is a cool idea, so now they're not so bothered.

Another great example is the forgetful nature of the world's people. Who will always want to have stories about alien invasions of Earth or other massive, global events. Those trees last week were one. However, they also always want to have a normal, recognisable Earth with characters the audience can relate to. These goals are incompatible, as a world post-inexplicable appearance of trees everywhere for a day would, in reality be completely different from the world we live in. And so we have the entire populace frequently forget huge events, with various explanations of why that would happen, or Moffat's single sentence that erased the entirety of RTD's run from history (which was also handily vague enough to allow him to return to any bits he did like).

This situation isn't any particular showrunner's fault, it's just a consequence of the premise of the show and the length it's run for. In fact I'd say it was an inevitability after they made up a bullshit excuse for why the Doctor didn't die and turned into a different actor for the first time. After you've done that, all bets are off, anything can happen.

[WibbleWorldGiddy]

Some fans have reacted badly to Master/Missy gender change

I hadn't considered Susan changing sex. I imagine she becomes a boy/girl during every temper tantrum, just so she won't have to wear the clothes her grandfather bought for her.

[Mr Cochese]

It's just too unbelievable that the most evil being in the Universe could be a woman.

[Camel]

Cochese reviews The Iron Lady.

[Lag]

"If the Doctor regenerated into a woman, would he change his name to The Nurse?"

Must, must be a troll/joke.

[SqueakyG]

"When The Master was a man I could respect and admire him. Now she's a woman I can only fancy her..."

[NEG]

Some fans have reacted badly to Master/Missy gender change

I hadn't considered Susan changing sex. I imagine she becomes a boy/girl during every temper tantrum, just so she won't have to wear the clothes her grandfather bought for her.

http://iamalwayslistening.tumblr.com/post/101616269528/the-deadly-assassin-the-master-is-a-decomposed This post says it best, really.

Although it should also include: master is ressurected via witchcraft (the scene had a literal witch brewing pot) and the power of his wifes ring

[JohnC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WATh0dDAkqo

[Hexx]

Can't link as on the phone but the radio times poster for tonight's episode is brill

[SeanR]

[zxcvbnm]

Lovely stuff - is there somewhere has all of these together?

[SeanR]

bow ties ARE cool.

rocket boots are cooler.

[Mr Cochese]

Travelodge. Travelodge. Travelodge.

[Ravern]

Well then.

That was a human and emotional story built around an intriguing SF premise with some sharp dialogue and performances, but I'm going to wager that the double twist finale is what's going to stick with people.

I read this post late on Saturday last week and watched the episode at 4am. Can people not misrepresent this week or I will pointlessly lose similar sleep.

[JohnC]

They're pulling a reverse Iron Man 3.

[SeanR]

I am iron man!

[edit]

jinx!